As a person who has spent much of my life tracking down the source of computer problems I realize that part of the attraction to this movie is to the process of applying rational thought to finding the solution to a problem. For this reason I was immediately taken in by +óGé¼+ôThe Da Vinci Code+óGé¼-¥ because I love detective stories in the vein of Sherlock Holmes. +óGé¼+ôThe Da Vinci Code+óGé¼-¥ reminded of the Sherlock Holmes movie version of +óGé¼+ôThe Hound of the Baskervilles+óGé¼-¥, except +óGé¼+ôThe Da Vinci Code+óGé¼-¥ has replaced the hell-hound of the Baskervilles which howled in the night with the albino monk Silas who also howled in the night. Both were determined to destroy the descendants of a particular familial line.
Ron Howard+óGé¼Gäós movie follows the time honored formula for the detective story first pioneered by Edgar Allan Poe in his tales of ratiocination.
(From cliffsnotes.com)
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/id-145,pageNum-8.html
+óGé¼+ôPoe is clearly responsible for and should be given credit for giving literature these basics of the detective story as a foundation for an entirely new genre of fiction:
(1) the eccentric but brilliant amateur sleuth
(2) the sidekick, or listener, or worker for the clever detective
(3) the simple clues
(4) the stupidity or ineptitude of the police
(5) the resentment of the police for the amateur's interference; and
(6) the simple but careful solution of the problem through logic and intuition. +óGé¼+ô
(End quote)
But the movie goes beyond the entertainment value of a detective story. Having read several tepid reviews of +óGé¼+ôThe Da Vinci Code+óGé¼-¥ I was interested in seeing whether the movie would exceed or meet the low expectations being set for it. After seeing the movie I couldn+óGé¼Gäót help but wonder if the mainstream media with its endearing manipulating ways was just trying to discourage people from seeing the movie because it might cause them to question their faith. If this is true it makes one wonder what areas of faith would be questioned. After seeing the movie I see no reason why it would cause anyone to question the greatness of Christ+óGé¼Gäós teachings, but I do see how it could cause one to question the infallibility of organized religion and church dogma.
As I said before there is nothing in the movie disputing the greatness of Christ+óGé¼Gäós teachings. The questions raised by the movie and the book are in the area of theology of who Christ was and the nature of +óGé¼+ôtrue+óGé¼-¥ Christianity. Perhaps the reason the movie disturbs many self-professed Christians is that it reveals the historical origin of much Church dogma. It must come as a shock to many Christians who have not researched the historical evolution of the Catholic Church to suddenly realize that the Christian holidays, the idea of the Trinity, and other Christian beliefs did not originate with Christ+óGé¼Gäós teaching or with the early church. They were arbitrary decisions made to incorporate existing pagan beliefs into Christianity in an attempt to establish order and to establish the sovereignty of the state over religious matters. (Am I the only Christian who has thought it odd that a religious celebration would consist of hearing about a brutal murder and a rebirth, and then going off afterwards and eating chocolate bunnies and candy eggs?) And what+óGé¼Gäós worse for some believers is the fact that the sanctification of these traditions was made and enforced by a professed pagan who+óGé¼Gäós primary goal was to solidify his own temporal power and in the process the temporal power of the state over religion. So at the Council of Nicea in 325 these tenets, among other things, were decided upon:
(From The University at Buffalo)
http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.5.html
+óGé¼+ô1. They defined Christmas to be on the 25th of December, the birthday of the Roman sun-god.
2. They moved the Christian Sabbath from Saturday to the Roman Sun-day (Dies Soli), the holy day of the sun-god Apollo.
3. They borrowed the emblem of the Roman sun God, the cross of light, to be the emblem of Christianity. Before this, the official symbol of Christianity was that of a fish, a symbol of the last supper.
4. They incorporated most of the rituals performed on the sun-god's birthday into their own celebrations.+óGé¼-¥
(End quote)
This source at the University at Buffalo continues:
+óGé¼+ôWell then, why did the masses in the centuries after this not revolt and renew the original teaching of Jesus? Because the Bible was made the property of the privileged few. No one was allowed to read it, nor to translate it into other languages. When these privileged few came into power in what would later be called by the West "The Dark Ages," (our more politically correct generation now prefers to refer to it as "The Middle Ages") the Bible was hoarded by these men and they were claimed to be the only ones who could understand it's teachings. The first authoritative English translation of the Bible was completed by Mr. William Tyndale, popularly considered a master of both the Hebrew and Greek languages. The King James Bible was based upon his translation. He was forced into exile in 1524 and later condemned and burned to death as a heretic in 1536 for the vile and blasphemous deed of translating the Bible into English.
This wholesale condemnation became so bad that it was not sufficient to condemn individuals any more, but rather, whole nations were condemned and killed. An example is the Holy decree of 15th of February 1568 which condemned all of the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. Three million men women and children where sentenced to the scaffold in three lines by the benevolent Trinitarian church. Why does no one cry "Holocaust" for these poor people?
"Upon the 15th of February 1568, a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of King Philip II of Spain, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant execution. . . Three millions of people, men, women and children, were sentenced to the scaffold in three lines. Under the new decree, the executions certainly did not slacken. Men in the highest and the humblest positions were daily and hourly dragged to the stake. Alva, in a single letter to Philip II, coolly estimates the number of executions which were to take place immediately after the expiration of Holy Week at 'eight hundred heads.'"
(End quote)
No doubt the reason people have so desperately held to these beliefs for hundreds of years is that to disbelieve these dogmas was to rebel against the power of the state, and the punishment was death. Thus Christianity has a long history in Europe of capitulating to the state and forming alliances with governments. This, of course, has no basis whatsoever in the teachings of Christ, it has its beginning in the efforts of the remnants of the Roman Empire to retain power over the masses through compulsory religious dogma.
Is it any wonder that the founders of our country thought these alliances between organized religion and secular governments were dangerous? The founders wanted to make sure to avoid what happened in Europe. However, today in The United States there is an effort of some churches to form unhealthy alliances with government and to convert religious beliefs into tools with which to manipulate the masses. Just as in The Middle Ages, the key to the success of these efforts is to keep the believers ignorant of the history of the church, and to require that congregations accept the word of their leaders and to not question their edicts. This helps blind them to how they are being manipulated which in turn helps their leaders to convert religious beliefs into temporal power.
Perhaps this is why this movie is being called +óGé¼+ôboring+óGé¼-¥ implying that it is not worth seeing. Maybe the truth is that it strikes too close to home for religious leaders who are bent on consolidating their political power. Just my humble opinion.